House drops Confederate Flag ban for veterans cemeteries

politico.com ^ | 6/23/16 | Matthew Nussbaum

[ColdOne]

A measure to bar confederate flags from cemeteries run by the Department of Veterans Affairs was removed from legislation passed by the House early Thursday.

The flag ban was added to the VA funding bill in May by a vote of 265-159, with most Republicans voting against the ban. But Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) both supported the measure. Ryan was commended for allowing a vote on the controversial measure, but has since limited what amendments can be offered on the floor.

[DoodleDawg]

Not that facts will be much good when arguing with you, but here goes anyways.

Facts are not something you seem to be well acquainted with.

The McCormick Reaper was designed by Robert McCormick in Walnut Grove, Virginia.

You are aware, are you not, that the McCormick reaper was used to harvest wheat and not cotton?

The first half of the 1860s was a period of great experimentation but by the end of the decade the standard form of the traction engine had evolved and would change little over the next sixty years.

And that would have helped with cotton how?

In his memoirs he wrote that it was getting more and more difficult to find work capable of being done by slaves and for which there is sufficient compensation to make it worthwhile to employ them.

And yet 60 years later there were over 3 million slaves still being gainfully employed.

The economic value of slavery was about to take a serious crash, and it was only a matter of time.

Why?

[DoodleDawg]

Not the Union. So long as they were sucking up the profits from all that slave money, they were going to keep it going.

So how would an independent Confederacy been any different?

[DoodleDawg]

As compared to the cost of the equivalent 250,000 men per decade? ( 3 decades in exchange for 750,000 men) I would say that was reasonably short.

The claim was made that slavery was on its deathbed and would have died out within a very few years without the Civil War. I'm still trying to find out why you people believe that and you all keep throwing out irrelevancies. If you can't answer the question then just say so.

[Pelham]

” And what would have caused slavery to end by the late 1860s-early 1870s as has been claimed?”

The usual method for altering a law was Congress.

The founders failed to see the wisdom of a leader who could alter laws by decree and force or they could have stuck with King George.

[DiogenesLamp]

You are aware, are you not, that the McCormick reaper was used to harvest wheat and not cotton?

You can't see the forest because you are focused on the trees.

The first half of the 1860s was a period of great experimentation but by the end of the decade the standard form of the traction engine had evolved and would change little over the next sixty years.

And that would have helped with cotton how?

Because it would have pulled the Cotton Harvesting machinery. Duh.

Also:

The Price-Campbell cotton-picking machine, which does the work of fifty persons.

You really have trouble grasping the big picture, don't you?

[DiogenesLamp]

But they didn't win, did they?

Because King George III wasn't so insane as to kill 750,000 people to subjugate the seceded states. He stopped at around 15,000 dead.

And what would have caused slavery to end by the late 1860s-early 1870s as has been claimed?

What does slavery have to do with the Rights of the Colonists to be free of the United Kingdom?

Make it good, because your answer will immediately be applied to the 1861 war.

[DiogenesLamp]

So how would an independent Confederacy been any different?

Well, FedZilla and the New York Empire barons wouldn't be getting the money. Considering those are the same adversaries we are currently facing, I think that would be a pretty good thing.

There would probably have been Charleston-Richmond empire barons, but they would certainly be smaller and less powerful than the ones we now have in New York and Washington DC.

Oh, and the nation would have been true to the rights asserted in it's own Declaration of Independence. That would have been a moral victory for the nation.

[DiogenesLamp]

The claim was made that slavery was on its deathbed and would have died out within a very few years without the Civil War.

A few years? Nobody said "a few years." It would have taken decades, but again, how much is your life worth? In exchange for the lives of 750,000 men, I think three decades is not unreasonable.

How long did it take in Massachusetts? 150 years?

[DoodleDawg]

The usual method for altering a law was Congress.

And if Congress had passed legislation outlawing slavery are you saying that the Southern states would have meekly complied?

[DoodleDawg]

You can't see the forest because you are focused on the trees.

And the crop in question. Not unrelated ones.

The Price-Campbell cotton-picking machine, which does the work of fifty persons.

Which didn't get introduced until 1912, didn't work, and was never marketed. In fact the firs successful mechanical cotton harvester wasn't introduced until the 1930's. Link

You really have trouble grasping the big picture, don't you?

None whatsoever.

[DoodleDawg]

A few years? Nobody said "a few years." It would have taken decades...

Reply 944. StoneWall Brigade said, "Yes if the had the won war Slavery would have been over with it was already a dying institution at start of the war. Add the advancement of farm technology, and the religious reveals breaking out it would have ended in short, amont of time." Sounds more like he was meaning a few years rather than decades to me.

[DiogenesLamp]

And the crop in question. Not unrelated ones.

Not the point. I mentioned the McCormick reaper because most people had heard of it.

Which didn't get introduced until 1912, didn't work, and was never marketed.

1889, was preceded by others, and would have possibly amounted to something had the available capital been there instead of New York.

None whatsoever.

Delusional too.

[DiogenesLamp]

Sounds more like he was meaning a few years rather than decades to me.

Sounds like you don't have the necessary appreciation of the historical scope of time to discuss historical events.

That you thought anyone was saying "a few years" is a testament more of your lack of understanding than anyone else's.

Decades. At least one, probably three or even more. The Civil War destroyed the capital with which anyone who might have been interested in such machines could have paid for development.

The point is, 750,000 lives were snuffed out to change a social policy that was destined to be changed anyway.

[DiogenesLamp]

And if Congress had passed legislation outlawing slavery are you saying that the Southern states would have meekly complied?

They could not have done such a thing without amending the constitution. In fact, "free states" were impossible without amending the constitution.

No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.

[DiogenesLamp]

Now I am remembering why I quit bothering to reply to you. You like to focus on trivialities and go around in circles.

[jmacusa]

I don’t ever recall saying slaves were not bound under the Stars And Stripes. But it was the Stars And Stripes under which their bondage ended.

[jmacusa]

And you can't escape the fact the South fought a war to preserve slavery and lost. Nothing, absolutely nothing is ever going to change that.

[DiogenesLamp]

And you can't escape the fact the South fought a war to preserve slavery and lost.

Nope. Slavery was already preserved. Lincoln even gave his assurances that he would continue it.

How about you stop lying about this? The South went to war because the North Invaded. The South seceded so that they could keep more of the profits their slaves were earning in Europe, and the New York Power barons sicced the FedGov on em to get back those profits they lost.

See that pile of coins? That's what New York wanted back, and they pulled the strings of their Agent in Washington D.C. to do it. All that talk about fighting to end slavery was just jive talk to justify the disaster they caused. This thing blew up in their faces, and they had to justify the lives they threw away for greed.

The war was about money. If the South wasn't making money that the New York Empire builders wanted, nobody would have given a sh*t what the South did.

[DiogenesLamp]

I don’t ever recall saying slaves were not bound under the Stars And Stripes. But it was the Stars And Stripes under which their bondage ended.

Nope. It was the Stars and Bars under which their bondage ended. The Union only freed the slaves in the South. It didn't free the slaves in the Union states.

Slavery continued under this flag, as it had done for "four score and seven years."

Kinda blows that whole "We were fighting to free the slaves" narrative, now doesn't it?

You people should be embarrassed to try that con on people, knowing full well that slavery continued longer in the Union than it did in the Confederacy.

[sargon]

The [Civil War] was about money.

That's just a pathetic bit of historical revisionism.

If the South wasn't making money that the New York Empire builders wanted, nobody would have given a sh*t what the South did.

Nonsense. Abolitionism as a moral concept predated the American Revolution, and was seen as a glaring contradiction from the very beginning. By the time the Civil War arrived, Abolitionism had grown into a formidable national movement.

The Civil War was about Slavery. The Southern States saw the writing on wall, and the inevitable reality that Slavery would, someday soon, be outlawed by the United States federal government, via Constitutional means.

You can post your graphics all you want, but the reason hundreds of thousands of middle class Northern parents were willing to send their sons off to die in a Civil War wasn't to protect the economic interests of greedy uber-rich Northerners. Without the righteous cause of ending Slavery, the willpower and impetus simply wouldn't have existed for the North to fight the Civil War.

The South seceded so that they could keep more of the profits their slaves were earning in Europe, and the New York Power barons sicced the FedGov on em to get back those profits they lost.

The South seceded to perpetuate Slavery, and they did precisely that when they authored the Confederate constitution. Were the economic considerations you cite a factor in the causes of the Civil War? Of course. Were they the central issue? Of course not.

The Confederate constitution, with its explicit embrace of Negro Slavery, was adopted on March 11, 1861, a full month before the bombardment of Fort Sumter which commenced armed hostilities. In both tone and legal content, it went far beyond the U.S. Constitution in its expansive embrace of Slavery. Thus, Slavery wasn't some afterthought incorporated when framing the Confederacy: it was the bedrock principle upon which the new nation was founded.

If, as you say, the Civil War was "about money", then why did the framers of the Confederacy find it so necessary to expand on Slavery so much in its founding document?

Indeed, almost the only differences between the U.S. Constitution and the Confederate one revolve around the institution of Slavery.

If the Civil War wasn't about Slavery, then I guess the Confederacy shouldn't have designed their constitution around the concept before the war even started.

Your thesis is false.

Vote Trump!